Author
Topic: 16-35 maybe 17-40 (Read 5155 times)

I am considering one or the other mainly for landscapes, but it could be nice to have f2.8 for the occasional indoor scene, there is a Canon cashback offer in the UK on the 16-35, still more than I would like to pay, but I have learnt in photography you have to pay for quality gear, my other concern is do these lenses vignette at wide angle especially with filters ( Cokin p system ) I would be prepared to upgrade filters over time.

Cokin P vignettes at about 17 only with the wide angle holder.Cokin P vignettes poorly on the 24-70 ii with the 82mm thread attachment - I would assume this to be the case with the 16-35 as well, with its 82 thread.Cokin Z pro works fine on both the 17-40 and the 24-70 ii at all focal lengths. Assume it would also work equally well on the 16-35 with the 82 thread.

canon rumors FORUM

Neither lens is known for corner-to-corner sharpness, and both will vignette even without filters. You should, as suggested, take a close look at that Tokina. They make superb ultrawides, though this lens *may* have QC issues. Buy from a place with a generous return policy.

(I should clarify my comment re: vignetting with filter holders). Both of the Canon UWA zooms vignette regardless but profile-wise easily corrected in post. The vignetting from the holder is a different kind - physical black shadows that are not correctable and would ordinarily necessitate cropping. Assume this is obvious but thought worth clarifying in light of one of the comments above.

I had the 17-40 for ten years and it was a great lens, used almost daily. Light, small and sharp as anything else from around f/5.6. Another plus for the 17-40 is that it takes your 77mm filters. The 16-35 f/2.8II is 82mm. Just something to consider in terms of additional expenses.

A month ago I switched to the bigger, heavier, 82mm filtered, more expensive 16-35 f/2.8II and to be honest, I'm not completely sure why. It certainly has commendable centre sharpness at f/2.8, (forget the edges...) that tiny extra 1mm of width and looks shiney and new, but between f/5.6 and f/11 the sharpness is line ball with the 17-40.

On a more subtle level though, there is a quality about the 16-35 f/2.8II vs the 17-40 f/4 that has nothing to do with sharpness, CA or any of the technical measurable stuff...the images just look nicer.

I hope that a new 16-35 f/2.8III is in development; one that will bring the awesome qualities of the new 24-70 f/2.8II to the UWA zoom table. If Canon is in fact shipping a 40+ mp DSLR anytime soon, that camera will punish the current 16-35 f/2.8II. A simultaneous announcement? We'll have to wait and see.

If your budget doesn't stretch to the 16-35 f/2.8II, the 17-40 f/4 will be sure to satisfy, so long as you don't expect stellar wide open performance. It's mushy wide open. But even one click down and it comes alive.

edit: BTW, don't be tempted by a pre-owned 16-35 f/2.8 series I. While there may be OK copies around, they're mostly rubbish and certain to disappoint.

On a more subtle level though, there is a quality about the 16-35 f/2.8II vs the 17-40 f/4 that has nothing to do with sharpness, CA or any of the technical measurable stuff...the images just look nicer.

Absolutely agree with this ! An aspect too often ignored in favor of sharpness.

Used to have the 10-22 on APS-C. Wanted to love it but didn't use it much though as I was not too fond of the overall rendering. So I thought I wasn't so good using UWA. Then I decided to revisit my position and went for a FF UWA. When reading reviews and opinions, choice between 17-40 and 16-35II is not so straightforward. I borrowed to compare both. For me, my clear conclusion is 16-35II is way better in many aspects and - IMO - I would rate the 17-40 equivalent to the 10-22 : good but not thrilling. Bought one 16-35 II produced in 2012. Love it. Now I can take UWA shots with confidence and be very pleased with them. Even taken at 2.8 and 3600 ISO in dark environment.

My bottom-line is: why bother to lug around kilos of equipment if this is to take pictures that are just a little better than those taken with the last generation of compacts. Buy the best, you won't regret it. And well, you won't be poorer at the end of the year, will you ...